If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing TH's designs - just structural ridgelines in general. I agree the line in the photo does not do what TH's ridgeline does.

FD - Tom's ridgeline "defines" what a structural ridgeline is. Tom doesn't "define" the term as far as I know, but everybody has come to associated the term "structural ridgeline" with Tom's style of ridgeline. That makes it the definition of the term - usage.

Ridgelines in the sense that you have shown pictures of were certainly in use for a looooong time, but they do not set the sag. Like a tarp ridgeline, they hold the netting up and out of the way. Those ridgelines have nothing to do with the sag of the hammock.

Now if you want to define those ridgelines as "structural" for your own use, fine.

But you will speaking a different language from most everybody else on the forums. But then maybe that is the problem - some people want to "define" a "structural ridgeline" as something different from common usage. Then they want to argue over over it.

In the first shot, they have the potential to be structural, but you can tell they aren't by the fact that the hammock suspensions have the same angle (to the horizontal) both above and below the ridgeline attachment point.

In the second pic, it appears that the ridgeline is simply holding up a bugnet, not affecting the hammock at all.

Not really having anything to do with Hennessy (to clarify my earlier post), but I think most of us would define a structural ridgeline as one which affects the hammock's sag. I think most of us would also say that this is done in some sort of permanent way.

"Physics is the only true science. All else is stamp collecting." - J. J. Thompson

definition of ridgeline

Originally Posted by TeeDee

FD - Tom's ridgeline "defines" what a structural ridgeline is. Tom doesn't "define" the term as far as I know, but everybody has come to associated the term "structural ridgeline" with Tom's style of ridgeline. That makes it the definition of the term - usage.

TH's ridgeline patent does at least two separate but related things. The claimed invention with respect to ridgeline is (this copied from US patent 6185763 and flagged already on the Hammocks and Patent's thread)

a ridge cord extending between said ends, said cord having an effective length less that the length of said fabric, whereby, when the hammock is attached to a pair of trees, a certain minimum sag is maintained in the fabric no matter how tightly the ropes are drawn.

emphasis mine, of course.

The second thing the patent does is describe some ways of implementing this idea. For the purposes of discussing whether a construction is a Hennessy ridgeline, people are tending to refer to what he sells. For the purposes of discussing what patent protection he claims for a ridgeline, you need to use the definition above. There are a variety of ways someone might implement the claimed invention.

With respect to the FD picture of the Mayan hammocks, whether or not these implement what the patent claims depends on what happens when the suspension ropes are drawn so tightly that the ridgeline takes on tension other than that due to gravity. If the ridgeline

- is weak string and breaks under this load or under the load of a person --> not an instance of the patent claim;
- is made of 1000 year old Mayan shock cord and stretches so that a minimum sag is not maintained --> not an instance of the patent claim;

If the ridgeline is made of a rope that is as strong as the suspension rope, is fixed to the suspension ropes and thus holds a minimum sag when a person is in the hammock, well, that could invalidate the TH claim if you got enough $$ and lawyers involved.

funky Mayan ropes

Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino

The ropes used to make the travel version of the Mayan hammock were woven as single rope to a point just before where the hammock body attached. The rope was then split and the ridgeline formed from one portion of the rope and the rope portions were rejoined at a point just beyond where the over end of the hammock body was attached.

So the rope splits into three strands, one of which is the ridge and two are sort of eaves, with some sort of roof constructed from ridgeline to eaves and the hammock body beneath?

Get thee to a lawyer, I think that would do it. I don't see that it matters if the construction was used for sag control, the patent claim is for a ridgeline with certain properties whenever the suspension lines are pulled tight.

Of course my credentials in patent law are limited to having once watched 1/2 an episode of L.A. Law.

This illustrates the delicacy of patent law. If the Hennessy patent limited itself to the clever way it's implemented and sold, there wouldn't be a challenge to it by your example, but it would also not cover a different ridgeline-oriented sag control device. Less claimed coverage, less risk of invalidation.

TeeDee, is this a structural ridgeline? It definitely limits the sag of this Thai hammock. Granted, it does it in a different way than the HH, but it does by design make it so the hammock will set up the same every time.

FD - neither in the first picture nor this second picture, does the ridgeline set the hammock sag.

If you look carefully at the first picture, where the cord holding the bug netting up is attached to the hammock suspension, you will notice that the cord is under no stress whatsoever from the person laying in the hammock. If the cord was under stress from the person and the cord was thus setting the sag angle, the cord would be pulled tight and not hanging in the loose curve which it is. Maybe you missed the fact that there is a person in that first hammock.

In the second picture the ridgeline pictured is holding the bug netting up off the hammock and otherwise has no effect on the hammock whatsoever. The pictured ridgeline is attached to the trees and could be used for a tarp or the bug netting. But It's effect on the hammock is zero. You claim that the ridgeline is setting the hammock sag angle. The fact that you have made the claim does not make the claim true however. Please elucidate on how it is doing so. In doing so please be precise and exact in your description describing the means by which the ridgeline acts on the hammock. NOTE: if you decide to do this, please do not do so in this forum thread - see below. Also note that a teacher I studied under a long time back explained that if you cannot explain something concisely and clearly - especially clearly - then you do NOT really understand what you are attempting to explain. I have found this to be true, not only of myself, but of others.

Originally Posted by Frolicking Dino

While HH certainly has one type of structural ridgeline, I really don't think the idea of a structural ridgeline should be limited to HH's method. There are many ways that have been used for centuries to set the sag and those are virtually all some sort of structural ridgeline - be they wood, bamboo, webbing, cord or some other material.

FD - as I've written previously, the definition of a "structural ridgeline" has been accepted by common usage on the forums. That common usage states that a rope/cord/line and I would include webbing, sets the hammock sag angle and that it sets the sag angle to exactly the same sag every time the hammock is hung. That definition is included in the Glossary for hammocking for the forum.

Now if you are so ambitious as to carry around 16' to 20' 4"x4" timbers, 16' to 20' bamboo rods of sufficient diameter and strength to hold the occupied hammock or some other nonsensical apparatus to set a certain sag for your hammock, plus the means of affixing that apparatus/timbers/bamboo to support trees, you can certainly do so. I know of no one else on the forums that is willing to do so however. You are attempting to re-define the commonly accepted definition of a "structural ridgeline" as embodied in the aforementioned glossary in an endeavor of your own choosing. At this point I personally think you are wasting the time of a lot of people in your endeavor and wasting the resources that ATTROLL has dedicated for the forums. You have hijacked this thread for your purposes, since people have stopped listening on the other thread you were using for this purpose.

The purpose of this thread was set by my first post and your continued use of this thread for other purposes is not appreciated.

I would appreciate it if you would either:

1. start your own thread for re-defining the meaning of the term "structural ridgeline" and title the thread clearly for that purpose and post all of the pictures of supposed structural ridglines to that thread, or

2. restrict all such re-definition attempts and pictures to the thread which you have managed to convert to that purpose - the thread on patents.

I would appreciate your doing that, so that in the future, I and others will know that the thread contains your efforts to do so and we can either read, respond or ignore as we so choose. Thank You.

Some of the manufactures may want to research Mayan hammocks and challenge the patent(s), but I have no dog in that race.

I'm not trying to find a way to challenge TH's patents, but to understand what does and does not constitute a structural ridgeline and how it could be implemented. I'm not a manufacturer so it would serve no purpose for me to challenge TH's patents. My sole motivation for entering this discussion was developing a thorough understanding the concept of a structural ridgeline and considering all ways to implement it in my designs - designs which are DIY projects with features not needed by most hammockers. I design for myself, Mother Nature and a handful of others with disabilities or back problems.

Man you could really have fooled me about what you were/are attempting to do. All attempts at explaining to you what a structural ridgeline is have been met with rejection and further argument and mis-direction.